Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 599 (RAJ)

Bhanwar Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2009-02-25

G.K.TIWARI

body2009
Judgment TIWARI, M.—This is a review petition under Section 229 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (in short `the Act') read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.) against the impugned judgment dated 27.11.2000 of learned Single Bench of this Court passed in appeal/Ceiling/241/99/Pali. 2. The facts, in brief, leading to the review petition are that the petitioner had filed an appeal under Section 23(2) of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act 1973 (in short `the Act of 1973') against the judgment dated 19.11.1999 of Additional Collector Pali passed in appeal No. 209/99. Additional Collector by his judgment dated 19.11.1999 has upheld the order of authorised officer Ceiling (Sub-Divisional Officer Sojat) dated 15.7.1999 by which 17.97 acres of the land was declared surplus under the Act of 1973. Learned Single Bench of this Court dismissed the second appeal by the judgment dated 27.11.02 which is sought to be reviewed through the present petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsels of rival parties. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the authorised officer (Sub-Divisional Officer) had erred in determining family unit in relation to the disputed land. There were seven adult members in the family of the petitioner but authorised officer erroneously clubbed them together and made them into one unit. The land of the deceased khatedar Khushal Singh devolved on three surviving successors-the petitioner, his mother and his sister-but this fact was ignored by the authorised officer and both the appellate Courts. The provision of Section 17 of the Act of 1973 was not correctly appreciated by the authorised officer. All the arguments raised before the learned Single Bench were not properly discussed and evaluated by the learned Single Bench with the result that faulty conclusion was arrived. As such the impugned judgment dated 27.11.2000 should be reviewed and rescinded and the appeal should be decided afresh on merits. 5. Countering the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate contended that there cannot be de-novo arguments of the main appeal under the garb of review petition. The authorised officer has correctly determined family unit and computed the ceiling area for the land in disputed land. Both the appellate Courts have concurred in the judgement of Sub-Divisional Officer Sojat. The authorised officer has correctly determined family unit and computed the ceiling area for the land in disputed land. Both the appellate Courts have concurred in the judgement of Sub-Divisional Officer Sojat. There is no error apparent on the face of record entailing the review of the judgment under consideration. The arguments raised before this Court were already raised before the learned Single Bench during the course of arguments of the second appeal; now the same arguments cannot be agitated again. Citing 2003 WLC (SC) 499 the learned Government Advocate contended that the scope of review is very limited. Citing AIR 1995 SC 455 and 2006 RBJ 235 it was pleaded that there is neither any error apparent on the face of record, nor is there any discovery of new fact in this case. It was also contended that even an erroneous view is not subject to review as held in 2005 RRT (1) 545 (SC). A review against such an order can be made only under Section 86 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act as held in 1981 RRD 263; for this, period of limitation for filing review petition is 30 days. This petition was filed on 16.4.01 whereas the impugned judgment was delivered on 27.11.2000. Thus the petition is grossly time barred and should be rejected as such. 6. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions, gone through the impugned judgment dated 27.11.2000 of the learned Single Bench of this Court and perused the file. 7. Perusal of the memo of the review petition shows that the petitioner is aggrieved against the fact that his earlier arguments raised before the learned Single Bench were neither appreciated nor discussed and evaluated in entirety while passing the impugned judgment, so a request is made to re-hear the arguments of the second appeal de-novo and decide the appeal afresh. But review is not meant for re-arguing and re-hearing an appeal already decided on merits. Even if it is presumed for the sake of argument that all the arguments and contentions of the petitioner were not discussed and analyzed in their entirety, it does not become ground for review of the judgment under consideration. But review is not meant for re-arguing and re-hearing an appeal already decided on merits. Even if it is presumed for the sake of argument that all the arguments and contentions of the petitioner were not discussed and analyzed in their entirety, it does not become ground for review of the judgment under consideration. Perusal of the impugned judgment of this Court and courts below make it obvious that the unit of the family was determined and computation of the ceiling area was made after giving due consideration to the facts and law which cannot be interfered with through a review petition. It has been held in 2005(1) RRT 545 (SC) that even if a view taken in the judgment is erroneous it cannot become ground for review of the judgment. The review has limited scope as held in 2003(1) WLC (SC) 499. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not brought out any error apparent on the face of record. An error apparent on the face of record should be such which strikes immediately looking at the face of the record and which does not require any long drawn process of reasoning by examination of law as is held in AIR 1995 (SC) 455 . The petitioner has not shown discovery of any new fact or material of evidence which despite due diligence could not be brought to the notice of the court at the time of hearing of the second appeal. Thus this review petition does not fall within the limited parameters of the provisions as contained under Order 47 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. 8. It is also worth mentioning here that a judgment passed in second appeal under Section 23(2) of the New Ceiling Act of 1973 has been sought to be reviewed, whereas there is no provision of review of a judgment under the New Ceiling Act of 1973. However, the Larger Bench of this Court has held in its judgment reported at page 263 of RRD 1981 - Antari Bai vs. Jaisa - that an appellate judgment under the New Ceiling Act of 1973 can be reviewed under Section 86 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act 1956; for which period of limitation would be 30 days from the date of judgment. But the instant review petition is filed not under Section 86 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act 1956 but under Section 229 of the Act under which no review is maintainable for a judgment passed under the New Ceiling Act of 1973. Besides it, even if it is presumed to have been filed under Section 86 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act 1956, the period of limitation under Section 86 of the Act of 1956 is 30 days as against State Government but this review petition was filed after a lapse of 5 months (150 days) but to condone this delay no application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed. Even in main memo of review petition no ground for condonation of delay is given. Apparently this review petition is filed under wrong provisions of law and much beyond the period of limitation without making even request for condonation of delay. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the review petition fails and as such it is dismissed. 10. Pronounced.